User talk:Dab

Diplomacy

I made sure the NPC diplomacy matches in game information exactly. Golden Chrysanthemums are not listed as an enemy of the Corsairs in game (Using F8) so I undid your false edit. Player faction diplomacy belongs on player faction pages, the NPC pages must match in-game information precisely. RogueCharlie 14:36, 15 September 2009 (MDT)

Since two of their allies were Hogosha and Gaians, I assumed it appropriate to have GC on the enemy list, especially since the GC faction (NPC) has Corsairs on their enemy list. It should be accurate, not just carbon-copies of the infocard. Dab 17:22, 15 September 2009 (MDT)

That might be appropriate for the player factions but the NPC pages must accurately show what is displayed in game. It took me several hours to go back and forth between the individual wiki pages and the appropriate cards in F8 to match everything exactly, as I was instructed to do by the wiki hosts. RogueCharlie 20:40, 15 September 2009 (MDT)

Unless you (RogueCharlie) are talking about Igiss in a conversation I'm not aware of, I and Blodo are not Wiki hosts. I'm a Sysop, and appealing to a high authority is a weak way of resolving the "conflict".

For the Record I agree that the NPC factions should have the ingame diplomacy, however this is still between you two at this stage. Let me know what you guys have decided and we can make it "Wiki Policy". If you can't resolve this, then we might need some Wiki Team consultation. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 21:40, 15 September 2009 (MDT)

I was referring to the feedback on my mytalk page by Skatepro0 to "...dont forget to check if all the diplomacy is correct." I don't know who is whom as far as admins / sysops of the wiki as I'm new to contributing. I do know that the advise given made perfect sense to me as I had planned to match everything up due to changes between 4.84 and 4.85.

As for the "conflict," I only find it appropriate that newbies should find the most accurate information on the NPC pages and then check individual faction pages for differences to aid them in choosing among them. That and I would never think to change information given in this wiki without accurate background information (like the information clearly printed in game on the F8 cards) or direct advise from someone who actually is in authority. Then there is the Wiki Editing Rules page that also clearly states, right in the first section labeled General, "...No submitting subjective, or unverifiable information. This usually means sorting faction diplomacy out on the forums first,..." and "The wiki data MUST be accurate." RogueCharlie 00:07, 16 September 2009 (MDT)

If accuracy is what important, than we shouldn't be restricting ourselves to only the faction infocards. Especially since those infocards are made by players, who are not infallible. They miss things, they have errors. We all know the Corsairs are hostile to the GC. The GC repsheet itself says such, the Corsair one doesn't.. However, they are still fully hostile to each other. So if we want to be accurate, we need to be showing the Corsairs are hostile to the GC. This isn't a player situation, it's an NPC one. The players didn't decide to go hostile to one another. The GC and Corsairs have been hostile ever since the Corsairs started bringing Artifacts into Kusari. That's part of Freelancer lore.

Most of the information on this wiki is gathered through rumors and lore, not carbon copies of the faction infocards or system infocards. Why should we make diplomacy carbon copy when the most accurate method would be to put the real relationship between factions. GC repsheet says hostile to Corsairs. Corsair repsheet doesn't.. They are still both hostile to each other, and that's fact, so why isn't it part of the wiki?

I would suggest that someone submit a bug report to the Developers so that the GC can be added to the Corsair repsheet. And add them to the wiki at the same time. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 19:57, 21 September 2009 (MDT)

Border Worlds & Edge Worlds

04:01 (cur; last) . . Dab (Talk | contribs | block) (Border Systems moved to Border Worlds
over redirect: The Border Worlds are designated as Border Worlds, not Border Systems in in-game
rumors/infocards (especially in relation to the BW ship line) and in the game/mod files. 
Being designated 'BW' fo)

04:01 (cur; last) . . Dab (Talk | contribs | block) (Edge Systems moved to Edge Worlds over redirect:
The Edge Worlds are designated as Edge Worlds, not Edge Systems in in-game rumors/infocards and in
the game/mod files. Being designated 'EW' for Edge Worlds. It'd only make it more confusing and in)

You'll notice I left the redirects in? If people search for Border Worlds or Border Systems, they will go to the same place. IMHO this is a developer issue and needs to be fixed. If you seriously have a problem with having a simple wiki redirect to the places, then I'll just have to get them changed ingame, won't I. :) ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 17:23, 4 September 2009 (MDT)

It's not that I have a problem with the wiki redirecting to places, it's the fact that these places literially ARE called the Border WORLDS. The ship line is even named for it; Border World Shipline. Check out the Sabre's page. The word World fits this much better than 'systems.' Systems is more defining of a solar system. While the Border Worlds may encompass more than solar systems. It also includes the areas between the solar systems and the area that encompasses the many solar systems that are a part of the Border Worlds. The original designation is the more accurate of the two. --Dab

Minor edits

Your latest edit was not minor, though you marked it as such. It included updating faction diplomacy, member roster, correcting the founding date, and adding a secondary role. This is far more than just superficial correction.

Please review [1], thank you!

--Eyvind (Talk) 11:35, 29 January 2010 (MST)

"A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

Considering it's my own faction's wiki page, I think a few changes to diplomacy, roster, and a few fixes to dates count as not needing reviewed, for the only person to review such changes would be me, and aren't subject to dispute, as it's changes to my own faction. The changes were covered by the term 'minor edits'. When I add a whole new section to history or something, that's something that wouldn't be minor.

--Dab 18:10, 8 March 2010 (MST)